A question to chew on. The answer? Pure piffle

This is a story about the NSW Government and its golden rule spin before substance. It is a story about food and filth and Ian McDonald, the minister responsible for keeping the cockroaches out of your lunch.

McDonald has a lot of titles. He is Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, Minister for State Development and Minister for Primary Industries. Somewhere included in that multitude of ministries is responsibility for food safety. The Food Act and the NSW Food Authority are his to look after.

When the issue of restaurants breaching his food safety rules comes up, it is supposed to be his responsibility. That is why I ended up ringing his office on Tuesday for a story in yesterday's Herald. The issue seemed simple enough when I outlined it to his staff.

The Herald had applied to three councils asking under freedom-of-information laws for access to the fines they had imposed on restaurants since 2005. We sent applications to Leichhardt, North Sydney and Woollahra. We did so after Blacktown Council released to the local paper a list of its fines.

Leichhardt replied it had imposed no fines since 2005 (must be cleaner than I thought), while North Sydney said the fines were exempt from release under FoI.

But Woollahra decided to follow Blacktown and the rest of the Western world and released copies of 10 fines imposed on nine businesses from 2005. They covered a host of offences, from filthy premises with fixtures covered in grease to the more serious offence of storing chickens in a fridge operating at close to room temperature. Fines ranged from $330 for the grease to $1320.

All this was explained in some detail on Tuesday to McDonald's office. Given that Blacktown and Woollahra had released lists of offending restaurants, did the Government think there might be merit in having a state wide scheme to make all such fines public? Clearly there is a balancing issue here between the right of the public to know what is happening in restaurants and the damage disclosing such information might cause.

In the US, parts of Canada and Britain, authorities publish all the results, so there is one rule for all restaurants. Here in NSW there are 150-odd councils, only two of which have so far released this information so some restaurants get named and shamed, but most do not.

McDonald's office was asked whether there was any support for a uniform scheme. They promised to reply, and didn't.

Rather than confront the difficult issue of whether the public has a right to know, McDonald was more interested in how to spin the story to deflect any possible criticism. His office cranked out a press release headed "Name and Shame Policy to be introduced for Food Outlets''.

It's piffle of course. "The NSW Food Authority will name and share [?] food outlets on its website to allow consumers access to information about successful food prosecutions,'' it said.
Information about prosecutions is already public. Prosecutions take place in courts open to the media. Besides, the Food Authority puts out its own press release whenever there is a prosecution.

As McDonald knows, the issue here is not about prosecutions, which take place only for the most serious offences. It is about fines that are imposed across the state every day.

Council officers impose the fines on restaurants. But they are kept secret, except in Blacktown and Woollahra.

Deciding whether to publicise these fines is a complex issue. But McDonald was not about to tell you that. Not when a meaningless platitude would suffice. "The public has a right to know, it's as simple as that,'' he blathered in his press statement.

And then, before the Herald story had even appeared, McDonald's press release managed to find its way into The Daily Telegraph for publication yesterday, the same day the Herald published its report.

I asked McDonald's media officer, Jason Bartlett, how this could happen. Perhaps the minister's office leaked it? "I doubt that would be the case,'' he said.

Would he like to deny they leaked it? He declined. It is hard to believe much from the minister's office.

Matthew Moore is the Herald's FoI editor. Tell him your FoI successes and failures at foi@smh.com.au

Posted
by SMH OnlineMay 24, 2007 12:00 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

perheaps Freedom of Information should be changed to Fortification of Information?

Posted by: robert on May 24, 2007 9:40 AM

There are serious health issues here and possibility of deaths. I have suffered severe food poisoning from a restaurant, and one of my daughters fro a fast-food outlet in recent times. A small sampling I agree, but it leads me to think the number of occurrences is quite high. I am not even sure how you report these matters, it is certainly not something easy to find. The hospital my daughter went to wasn't interested.

This refusal to release details is sheer arrogance on the part of the government.

If it was known that offenders would be named and shamed I expect the standards would rise overnight.

Posted by: Danny on May 24, 2007 11:44 AM

I dont give a monkeys toss about any damage that may occur from someone being named and shamed,if these premises are so bad its obvious they dont care about the publics safety so why should anyone worry about the restaurants reputation?NSW health laws are a JOKE they should be enforced to the highest degree,no ifs or buts and all results should be made public whether it be on councils web sites or Govt websites the public has a RIGHT to know what they are eating.

Posted by: hoova on May 24, 2007 12:03 PM

Hate the American practice of "sue everything" but what would happen if people sued the council and the government after getting sick at a restuarant?

If the council and government knew the place was dodgey and a 'health risk' but kept it quiet then they would have been partly at fault by 'endangering' the diner because they had no means of knowing the place was risky.

The only defence would be to prove that no offences had been found at the place in question. Oops, that means FOI which leads us back to the original problem.

Posted by: FrankK on May 24, 2007 3:16 PM

Any business that doesn't comply with health regulations SHOULD have their details on public display. Sometimes simple solutions are best & this is such as solution. It beats putting additonal layers of control in the system.

Posted by: Gabriel on May 24, 2007 3:25 PM

Excellent investigative journalism!

You know, in an industry that I have come to regard with generalised disdain you have managed to stand out as a journalist doing something truly worthwhile.

Good on you! I hope your publication-hammer achieves the appropriate reflex from the media-injured knee of government.

Posted by: Kane Mortlock on May 24, 2007 3:57 PM

Put in a system just like LA and others - have health inspectors give any place that serves food a good audit and then require them to display a grade from A to D of food standards. Simple enough really. Most places get an A or a B - any lower than that and you know that you might suffer from eating there.

Posted by: Ben on May 24, 2007 3:59 PM

Even the fines issued by the NSW Food Authority and Councils are the tip of the iceberg. Many Councils and the NSWFA will not fine offenders unless they have failed to clean up on request. Those premises who allow the annual food inspection of their premsies to be the trigger to clean up therefore would not appear on any fines list, provided they clean up upon request.

A far better system is for regulators to award stars or points to food premises after inspection, and require the premsies to publicly display their rating to their customers. This rewards the good premises, punishes the unclean and unhealthy ones, and provides an incentive for premises to put their premises in a clean state and keep it there.

Note also that the NSW food regulation system is being overhauled, with Councils being offered the choice to withdraw from food regulation. Many will, but it remains to be seen if the state regulator will be able to perform inspections to the same standard and frequency of local Council officers.

Posted by: Crown Prince Frederick on May 24, 2007 4:10 PM

Storm in a tea cup anyone? I've lived in Sydney all my life (North Shore, Inner West, Inner City) and have eaten out constantly. Everything from Rockpool to dodgy kebab places at 3am and I have never, ever been sick so either I have a cast iron stomach or there is no real problem here.

Posted by: sarah on May 24, 2007 4:13 PM

Labor Govts cannot run a chook raffle. Both Carr and Iemma have perfected the art of 'SPIN'-smoke and mirrors. If you check out how many journalists have been employed in the State Govts in the last 10 years you will notice more journalists being appointed in huge media units in Govt to keep a lid on accurate information being available to the general public who have a right to know what their Govts are doing. The main excuse is - "It is a Cabinet document" or
'Professional Privilege'. Even the Public Service list of public servants is not readily available. Its all rotten to the core.

Posted by: G. of Sydney on May 24, 2007 4:34 PM

Maybe restaurants should be obliged to put on the menu the lies and soin of their local parliamentarians. But that might be too unpalatable.

Posted by: jeremy on May 24, 2007 11:37 PM

Delicious irony. It was your paper that gave such favourable coverage to Morris throughout the recent state election. Rather than showing his government for what it is, your paper chose to support him. Be proud of your role in his re-election and share in the glory of every gaffe his fumbling government makes...I doubt this post will see the light of day but you and I know better...

Posted by: Jim on May 24, 2007 11:44 PM

Cockies? Allow us to show you lot the way.
Example;
We had more problems with our "economically experienced" bananas than eradicating a few miserable cockies at Lang Park. It's easy when you learn from a mastercraftsman.